AR Opinion, Stag or S&W

This is a discussion on AR Opinion, Stag or S&W within the Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SIXTO
In your price bracket, I'd go with the Rock River. Fit, finish, components and customer service blow the rest away in ...

Of the choices given, I would take the Stag for the lifetime warranty as opposed to S&W's limited warranty...as we've seen elsewhere on the forum, with the S&W you just might need a better warranty, I'm glad I didn't end up with the 15T I wanted.

Yup, normally I'd back Sixto - but RRA just doesn't match up when compared to a true TDP following mil-spec rifle. They have great fit and finish, but if this is a defensive rifle, it should at least meet the military's minimum requirement, right?

I would go with Rock River or DPMS. We have a couple of S&W horror story threads up and running right now with a couple of bad experiences which would keep me from ever getting a S&W AR rifle. Stag has a lefty version which makes it a draw to lefties but I have also heard a few negative things regarding their quality control as well.

Yup, normally I'd back Sixto - but RRA just doesn't match up when compared to a true TDP following mil-spec rifle. They have great fit and finish, but if this is a defensive rifle, it should at least meet the military's minimum requirement, right?

Yes, RRA are not milspec... However, you have too give an honest look at what the rifle is going to be used for. Are you going out on patrols behind enemy lines? Are you in the jungles or deserts on the other side of the globe? No. They might make the occasional trip to the range, and even if they are pressed into "service" role, they are more than adequate to provide the service they ever will see. They will never see prolonged fire fights in full auto mode. The bolt or barrel will never see the abuse and heat a full auto or select fire weapon in military service creates.
I'd rather invest my money in some extra items that the RR's have, that a true mil spec rifle does not. I'd rather have the most accurate carbine that I can have. One that was specifically designed for the role I'm using it in.

I have a Stag upper and it's great. If it's good enough for this guy (link below), it's for damn sure good enough for me. I would trust my life with this gun for sure.

By the way, don't get too caught up on the staked gas key, or the 1.7 barrel twist. It's pretty cheap to get done or easy to do yourself. The only ones I have seen come lose are the ones that were supposed to be staked properly! Half the time, it seems like that is what makes it come lose.

I shoot .223 and 5.56 all day long and you will find that the added grain weight argument is weak. Unless you want to shoot odd ammo, it's not too big of a deal. Most .223 ammo is 55-grain, and either gun will eat it up.

I shoot .223 and 5.56 all day long and you will find that the added grain weight argument is weak. Unless you want to shoot odd ammo, it's not too big of a deal. Most .223 ammo is 55-grain, and either gun will eat it up.

So people like DocGKR and pretty much everyone who does any kind of terminal ballistics that recommend 75gr BTHP (Like Hornaday TAP) are just blowing smoke? Don't think so. I'll stick with my TAP for HD in the M4.

So people like DocGKR and pretty much everyone who does any kind of terminal ballistics that recommend 75gr BTHP (Like Hornaday TAP) are just blowing smoke? Don't think so. I'll stick with my TAP for HD in the M4.

Dooley,

If I remember correctly, you don't even own an AR! Now getting back to twists and grain. With a 1:9 twist you can easily shoot 68gr bullets. Trust me, with the right load and bullet type, it's deadly. Would you want to step in front of a 68gr HP or PSP?

You sir, remember incorrectly. I have a Colt 6920 and a BCM upper on a lower I assembled. Both 1:7, both stabilize 55gr-75gr and up, giving me far more options than a 1:9 twist barrel.

I was was providing empirical evidence for the OP so that he knew why certain features are considered more desirable - at least to me and to people who I recognize as being subject matter experts versus just Bubba at the range.

If a rifle can't meet the minimum standard, what standard are they measuring themselves by? Let me ask it this way - if you can have a barrel that gives you more options or less options for the same price, which would you choose? If you're looking at the S&W above for $1K, I can find you a mil-spec, TDP meeting rifle for that price or within $100 easy. It will be more reliable, longer-lasting and will give you more options.
This forum supposedly is for defensive rifles, not varmint rigs, and people who use a carbine every day all pretty much agree on what should go into a rifle.

One quick statement on "standards". We get caught up in mil spec standards; for what reason?

Formula one has standards, as does NASCAR, as does NHRA. Does that mean that I should spend my vehicle budget making sure my family sedan is up to those standards? No, of course not. My money is going to go into realiablity, safety and comfort. My standards that fit my needs.
Again, none of us are talking about M4's or M16's. We are talking AR15's. While they may look a like, there are a lot of differences... and different standards for each.

Does my M4 that actually sees "service" meet military specs? You bet. It exceeds them. Does my AR15? No. But it does exceed them in other areas making a better rifle for what I intend to use it for.